[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 5/7] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:38:05 -0700
Joel Fernandes <> wrote:

> So actually with or without the clean up, I don't see any issues with
> dropping lockdep_recursing in my tests at the moment. I'm not sure something
> else changed between then and now causing the issue to go away. I can include
> Peter's clean up in my series though if he's Ok with it since you guys agree
> its a good clean up anyway. Would you prefer I did that, and then also
> dropped the lockdep_recursing checks? Or should I keep the
> lockdep_recursing() checks just to be safe? Do you see cases where you want
> irqsoff tracing while lockdep_recursing() is true?

I say rewrite it as per Peter's suggestion. Perhaps even add credit to
Peter like:

Cleaned-up-code-by: Peter Zijlstra <>


And yes, I would recommend dropping the lockdep_recursion() if you
can't trigger issues from within your tests. If it shows up later, we
can always add it back.


-- Steve
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-15 22:06    [W:0.067 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site